MANITOBA Tory MP Rick Borotsik is a hard-working, informed agriculture critic who also is a bit of a rhetorical bull-in-a-china shop.
So when he rose in the House of Commons Feb. 3 to accuse agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief of having “bullied and intimidated” provincial agriculture ministers into supporting Ottawa’s proposals for new farm safety net plans, it could be discounted somewhat as Borotsikian hyperbole.
Of course, there also was the charge by Saskatchewan farm leader Terry Hildebrandt that by insisting federal financial commitments will decrease if new programs aren’t started April 1, Ottawa is engaging in “blackmail tactics.”
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Whatever the reason, Vanclief and his officials must be credited with a political and policy success Jan. 31 when nine of 10 provinces agreed to work toward an April 1 launch of new safety net programs, farmer opposition be damned.
Provincial ministers said they would try to convince skeptical farmers this was a good deal.
Ministers like Saskatchewan’s Clay Serby ended months of waffling by promising to sign and give up a quest for recognition of trade injury.
Ontario’s Helen Johns continued to insist her mind is not made up but she did sign the communiqué that would lead to the end of provincial companion programs co-funded by Ottawa.
How did Vanclief and deputy minister Samy Watson score this victory, the political version of herding provincial cats?
It was a combination of political cleverness, financial threats, optimistic detail and compromise.
Let’s work backward, starting with compromise. Farm groups and provinces raised alarms that allowing the new Net Income Stabilization Account program to be a source of farm investment dollars could be a red flag for trade rules and make NISA a target of trade challenges.
Vanclief showed he had listened by suggesting it not be implemented until 2006.
On optimistic detail, provinces and farm groups had been demanding more information about how new programs would be better than the old. Federal bureaucrats went to Toronto brimming with details of theoretical applications that made the proposals look better than good.
Provincial ministers, under the gun, saw something positive and signed, convinced that the alternative would be less money and poorer programs.
The financial threats part of the package, whether bullying or blackmail, was effective. Farm groups and their provincial supporters wanted a year’s extension of existing programs to allow more time for detail and analysis and they asked that federal cabinet agree to the extension.
Vanclief did not bother to present that possibility to cabinet. Take what’s offered or begin to lose federal financing April 1, he said. Most provinces decided it was not worth the risk to defy the deadline.
That’s where political cleverness came in. Vanclief and his entourage knew they held the financial hammer and the ability to set a deadline. What provincial minister would risk jeopardizing 40-cent farm safety net dollars?
Farm leaders now face not just Ottawa but its provincial allies. The farmer campaign to slow the agricultural policy framework train just became more difficult.
